User talk:Witotiwo

My position
I don't agree to put too much trivial content in the page. Trivial content can create dyslexia and can't find really important content. Encyclopedia should be easy to read and easy to understand.--Witotiwo (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi
First of all, welcome to Wikipedia!

Secondly, I'd like to thank you for your efforts to remove unhelpful content – I wholeheartedly agree that navigability and readability are often sacrificed because no one gets rid of near-useless information.

Also, I'm sorry if it seemed like I'd snuck up on you by undoing changes you'd made. I promise you I didn't mean it as a personal attack. I can see that on the whole what you're doing is really good and your judgement is also very good. There are just one or two general points I thought I'd recommend:
 * 1) I noticed that a lot of your edits involve Categories. Personally, I would try to ignore Categories entirely, even if they're contentious. I promise no one has ever been influenced or informed by what category an article was placed in on Wikipedia. Fact-checking and simplifying make much more of an impact. For the record, even for "contentious labels", a partial or tangential relationship can justify inclusion in a category, as long as it's well sourced and doesn't read like an accusation; the Xinjiang conflict undeniably relates to the Category:Terrorism in China in part, and if the Turkistan Islamic Party isn't in there then what is?
 * 2) Just because something is unreferenced, doesn't mean it's wrong. Unless you think the information is worthless even if true (which is maybe more often the case), then you should try to check it before you remove it. (If you plan to take out a lot, maybe skim it in case there's anything that someone might find valuable or interesting.) Google the main words, click the first few links, Ctrl-F for whatever you're looking for. My go-to after that, particularly for obscurer things, is the same process on Google Books. If you haven't cited things before there's a good tutorial for it. For me, getting to the bottom of things, becoming an expert in some tiny thing you didn't know existed a moment ago is the most fun bit of Wikipedia.  If you've made an effort and can't find anything, then go ahead and delete it.

Anyway, feel free to ignore my advice, I won't bother you again, but keep up the good work. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 23:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Ready to enter semi-retirement or retirement

 * No, you are not thought to be a sock because you "caught the socks" in a different case. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry,sir ! You may think that you explained it very clearly, but I am still confused. in a different case? Anyway, I am planning to go to https://meta.wikimedia.org/ to request something. PS:I think that using any way, as long as you can catch socks is a good way.Is this wrong? Is this what you mean?--Witotiwo (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You say you "caught the socks". Where was that? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Where ? Check the CIDR of the suspect IP, edit history in 7 days, edit summary.Check the edit history of the relevant page to find out who made the same edit. Or check the clues provided by the relevant page.So what is the problem with this?In addition, I will check the editing time. If the time difference is less than 10 minutes.I am going to find an example for you to see about editing time.
 * 20:44, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-12)‎  Military education and training in China  ‎2600:387:6:807::55 (talk) ‎ (Undid revision 865348770 by 180.204.0.235 (talk)) (Tag: Undo)
 * 20:43, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-4)‎  Battle of Changsha (1942) ‎ (→‎Battle: If it doesn't have a page, it shouldn't be linked.)
 * 20:42, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+1)‎  Battle of Changsha (1942) ‎
 * 20:42, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (+15)‎  Battle of Changsha (1942) ‎
 * 20:41, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-23)‎  Donghua University ‎ (→‎History: Already has  tag at bottom)
 * 20:39, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-3,513)‎  Chinese nationalism ‎ (Too many unsourced claims in this section, and is already repeated in the "main" article "Sinocentrism")
 * 20:36, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (-225)‎  Human rights in China  ‎2600:387:6:807::55 (talk) ‎ (reverting edits by long term vandal)
 * 20:34, 25 October 2018 (diff | hist) (0)‎  Battle of the Paracel Islands  ‎2600:387:6:807::95 (talk) ‎
 * My other feature is to check the relevant account of the page I edited. Like this example of editing time, the page I edited is Donghua University.--Witotiwo (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you have completely lost me and I have no idea what you're talking about now - I really have no idea how this relates to your assertion that you are thought to be a sock because you "caught the socks". Maybe there's a language/translation problem between us? The Sockpuppetry case which led to your block is at Sockpuppet investigations/O1lI0/Archive, and that is what you need to address. I'm leaving this now, and someone else will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)